[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, brian conley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This morning I discovered that the work of one of my projects, Alive in Baghdad, had been posted on the front page of http://ourmedia.com. (I have enclosed a screen capture for your reference.) Not only did noone request the use of our work, or inform us of our inclusion on this site, but OurMedia presents our work in a way that could be significantly harmful to our project. At first glance, the presentation of our work on OurMedia suggests to the average viewer that AIB has a political, anti-war stance and that AIB is a part of OurMedia. In fact this could not be farther from the truth, AiB takes pains to present a balanced view of life in Iraq, that simply shows the experiences and feelings of Iraqis, without adding a political tone. Basicallyin representing AIB, OurMedia selected a thumbnail of a woman with a translated quote underneath that says May God Curse Bush and all those that brought him here. Obviously, this is not a quote that we would choose to have represent us. We worried about including that segment at all and feared that, out of context, separate from our other work, it could cause harm to the public face of the project, bring flamers, etc. However, inside of the entire episode, we felt it was acceptable and was reflective of the situation in Iraq. We care deeply about building a project that gives voice to Iraqi citizensnot towards pushing a political agenda. Such a posting can damage the perceptions of Alive in Baghdad and our future opportunities. Additionally, OurMedia indicates that we are a member of their organizationi.e. you'll notice to the right of the thumbnail, it lists a link titled member page that links to AliveinBaghdad.org. AiB is not, nor has it ever been, a member of Ourmedia. Given our experience, we question whether they actually have 125,000 members Jay @ Markus are addressing the issues and clearing up the misunderstandings, but I agree with you that someone reading that page will get certain incorrect impressions. Until reading the posts here, I didn't realize ourmedia was revlogging at all. I went to the page, saw the lady, saw the caption, clicked on member page and went straight to AiB. I think there's another link that says media page that goes to the AiB permalink for that video. I was looking for ANY member list at all, and couldn't find a list of content creators... you get sponsors partners, so that seemed odd as well. If a group's going to re-vlog material, especially sensitive material like AiB, thumbnail selection is CRITICAL. Until this situation, I would have assumed that the thumbnail used would have been the thumbnail supplied by the content creator. For instance, if you go to a video on blip and select share, you can select the actual thumbnail that the creator uploaded. I would assume that that would be used in the revlog as well. You can't use some automatically-generated thumbnail, because it's completely out of context. You can have a video about cleaning up the neighborhood with examples of what NOT to do in it, and the randomly selected thumbnail is of some guy spraying paint on the side of a wall. People's impression of the video itself, and consequentially, the group responsible for it, is going to be affected by their perception of the out-of-context image representing the video. Also, Markus has already mentioned the link issue. member page makes the person who is certainly not a member of this group think the group is cheating or trying to gain something by sneaking an affiliation with them that they were never contacted about. It also gives more credence to the out-of-context still, because it looks like this entry was created by the group that created the video. The page itself doesn't mention revlogging in any fashion. It also says not to post other artists' copyrighted works without permission. I see where Brian would see this as a CC issue, because the implication is that nobody needed AiB's permission to post their material (in this case, revlogging, though it doesn't say that anywhere) because AiB's license allows use of the video under certain circumstances, including attribution, which the linkbacks took care of. I think it's an interesting topic that Brian's raised here. The obligation is attribution and whatever else, but attribution doesn't necessarily mean that the content creator received notice of that attribution. It also doesn't mean that the creator has APPROVAL over the use of their video... especially before it goes out to the public. Trackbacks and Pingbacks go out when the post is published, so by the time that the creator finds out about it and decides they want to contact the site and let them know what they'd like changed, the cat is already out of the proverbial bag. -- Bill C. http://reelsolid.tv http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/
[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
Greetings, Interesting stuff. Heres my personal take on this: Using Creative Commons means that people certainly dont have any obligation to contact you first in order to fully redistribute (including re-host) your work, or make derivative works from parts of your show. Under the terms of the license you use, they can pretty much do what they like with your stuff so long as its non-commercial, they give attribution to you, the new work is shared by the same terms, and they display your license. The wording on their site which made it sound like you were a member, is probably not a copyright/creative commons issue, unless they failed to disclose your cc license, or attribute/link back to you. In cases where they do that but still make it seems like you are an active member of their community, I would think areas of the law that deal with misrepresentation and fraud are more likely to apply. Your own site does not appear to link to your creative commons license info, which strictly speaking means you arent using creative commons properly, according to their own instructions. The knock-on affect of this is that other sites do not have to put a URL to your page when they show your work (because the creative commons license specifies that the page linked to must have creative commons license details within it) The issue of controlling how your show is represented, what quotes are used, whether a misleading impression is given, is not often discussed in the vlogging community so far. Copyright (and thus creative commons) are only part of this side of the things. The following is taken from the creative commons site, it may not be 100% applicable in this case because I dont know if ourmedias use constituted a derivative or collective work, but its in the right area of the law: I don't like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do? If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work. In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators moral rights which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a derogatory treatment of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to derogatory treatment of their work; derogatory treatment is typically defined as distortion or mutilation of the work or treatment, which is prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author. All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered derogatory. So you need to study moral rights or equivalent US law (if any) to see how much this applies. Bear in mind this is largely a copyright issue, using creative commons does not change things very much here. For example, even if your work was fully copyrighted, some countries have 'fair use' rights, which include certain educational uses, parody, and quoting. There are therefore various circumstances in which I would be fairly confident I would be able to take a snippet from your show and highlight it or use it in some other context, even if you use ful copyright. This is a fairly grey area, but the point is that even normal copyright has its limitations. Personally I think your fear of beind misrepresented by others is understandable, as is the instinct to try to stop this, but it is something most creators have to put up with to a certain extent, and is an issue that have existed long before vlogging and the internet came along. To clamp down on this stuff to the maximum extent possible, other laws need to be used, in areas such as trademarks, libel and defamation. Even then there are limits to how far you can take things, and the specific case you highlight does not seem like a prime candidate for using any of those laws. Consider trademarking your name and logo as a way of stopping people misusing you in ways far greater than are being considered today. But when it comes to how much to try and clamp don on people casting you in the 'wrong light', I think you are hoping for too much control. Politicians have to get used to being misquoted, and of all sorts of accusations. There are legal mechanisms which they can use to try to put people off the worst of this, but at the end of the day they have to take most of it on the chin. Creative people in traditional media are powerless to stop reviewers etc from saying almost anything they like. Michael Moore, The Dixy Chicks and many others, are powerless to prevent a billion words of hate
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
I think it's an interesting topic that Brian's raised here. The obligation is attribution and whatever else, but attribution doesn't necessarily mean that the content creator received notice of that attribution. It also doesn't mean that the creator has APPROVAL over the use of their video... especially before it goes out to the public. Trackbacks and Pingbacks go out when the post is published, so by the time that the creator finds out about it and decides they want to contact the site and let them know what they'd like changed, the cat is already out of the proverbial bag. In this case with Ourmedia and Alive in BaghdadI agree that the member page needs to change. Up until recently, JD only linked to video on Ourmedia...but I guess he wanted to stat linking out...and the wording hasnt changed yet. Markus says he's working on this change in the template. If you go to http://ourmedia.org/, the AIB video is now gone. So that's an easy fix too. if you see something you dont like, definitely complain to that person. If they dont do anything about itthen raise a big stink. I find that most times things we dont like are just a misunderstanding. Since Brian ants to make sure people see AIB as being objectivehe should complain if someone makes him look inflamatory. as far as revlogging...let's look at a couple examples: http://revlog.blogspot.com/ (Ryanne) http://www.unitedvloggers.com/ (Michael Schaap) Do you expect either of them to email people BEFORE they reblog somebody? And you dont think they have the right to choose the frame of video they want to link to? I find this interesting since a journalist would sayI can write about anything with any spin I want. Fair use. Do you email anyone you are going to link to? Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's an interesting topic that Brian's raised here. The obligation is attribution and whatever else, but attribution doesn't necessarily mean that the content creator received notice of that attribution. It also doesn't mean that the creator has APPROVAL over the use of their video... especially before it goes out to the public. Trackbacks and Pingbacks go out when the post is published, so by the time that the creator finds out about it and decides they want to contact the site and let them know what they'd like changed, the cat is already out of the proverbial bag. In this case with Ourmedia and Alive in BaghdadI agree that the member page needs to change. Up until recently, JD only linked to video on Ourmedia...but I guess he wanted to stat linking out...and the wording hasnt changed yet. Markus says he's working on this change in the template. Sure. That's just semantics. http://revlog.blogspot.com, which you mention later, does a much better job of making it clear where they got their material. They also don't make it look like whomever originally posted the material has any affiliation with their blog whatsoever. It looks like what it is... a re-vlog. If you go to http://ourmedia.org/, the AIB video is now gone. So that's an easy fix too. You can't un-ring a bell, so that's not a fix. It prevents anyone that hasn't already seen it from getting the same incorrect impressions, which is a good thing, but it does nothing for those that already saw it and gathered their impressions of the situation. It's still a good idea until something can be decided between revlogger and content creator... IF that's a goal of the revlogger in the first place if you see something you dont like, definitely complain to that person. If they dont do anything about itthen raise a big stink. I find that most times things we dont like are just a misunderstanding. Since Brian ants to make sure people see AIB as being objectivehe should complain if someone makes him look inflamatory. as far as revlogging...let's look at a couple examples: http://revlog.blogspot.com/ (Ryanne) http://www.unitedvloggers.com/ (Michael Schaap) Do you expect either of them to email people BEFORE they reblog somebody? It depends on what their intent is. If their intent is to publicize people that want to be pubclicized, yes, they should email the content creator to find out if they'd like to be featured on their site. If their intent is to present the content creator's work in a way that pleases the creator, then, yes... they should email ahead of time. If their intent is to report anything they want to report in any way they want to report it, then, no... they shouldn't email the content creator before re-posting their content. As you say, you can write anything you want and spin it any way you want. That's a position. I suppose the question becomes what is re-vlogging? then. If a re-vlog is simply Look everybody! Look at what I find interesting, and [maybe] here's what I think about it, then nobody needs to be contacted... AND no videos need to be removed when the content creator isn't satisfied with how his/her video and possibly entire group has been represented. That's what many many blogs are, anyway. It's not people that are actually DOING something. It's people that are REPORTING on OTHER PEOPLE doing something. :) Of course, if everyone extended the courtesy to the people they're reporting on of asking their permission for this or that, nothing would get done, because the Nokia N95 representatives would never stop getting emails, and they would never return them and the whole system would shut down. OTOH, if a re-vlog is a social attempt to make a video known or a group who did that video known, it seems to me that they'd like to present the featured videomaker(s) in the light they'd like to be featured in. Of course, this happens to be a special circumstance, which is what makes this such an opportunity for discussion. There happens to be a war going on. There happen to be cameras over there. There happens to be footage coming back that MSM would never EVER have shot in the first place or aired in the second. There are already people (I'm sure) taking advantage of this for propaganda on both sides of the issue. The question is what is whomever trying to do with their re-vlog? Are you trying to accommodate the person or group who created the content? Are they _really_ a part of your group, as member suggests? (and I know that issue's being fixed) How involved are you with whomever you're re-vlogging? If the answer is NOT, then no action needs to be taken regardless of how the content creator feels. And you dont think they have the right to choose the frame of video they want to link to? hehe They absolutely have the RIGHT to choose whatever they like. :)
[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
Great post Bill. I used google cache to see what the ourmedia page was like before it got changed. Because there is no mention of re-vlogging anywhere on ourmedia that I can see, and the site's historical emphasis has been on content uploaded by its members hosted at archive.org, I certainly do think they need to take care and make some other changes before getting into this revlogging stuff. And I definately think that re-vlogging is a lot better when some commentary is added, even just a few text sentences explaining why the work is worth highlighting, goes a long way to making it look like a decent thing. Avoid having too many similarities with services that put other peoples popular work on your site to make you look good attract attention/viewers. Dont rely on your history or reputation or stated goals and objectives as being things that give you any more of a buffer to err in. I look forward to the interesting sounding changes that will be made to ourmedia, if revlogging is to be a common thing then Id suggest a seperate section where other works are highlighted along with some commentary. Is just changing the name of a few buttons enough? I dunno, its easy for me to shout my opinion, Im not the one thats gotta do it. Hows everything going out there in the world of non-commercial entities trying to do their bit for vlogging etc anyways? Hows ourmedia and node101 and freevlog and others doing? I always admired these projects whilst doing bugger all to help any of them myself. My guess as an outsider is that they have been rewarding in their own way but have struggled to get a critical mass of people and resources. Donations alone havent been enough, so either adverts or sponsorship or a reduction in time spent on the projects are other options. Outhink seems to be one of the few commercial entities enlightened enough to have given money resources to these causes, they seem to pop up all over the place, Im an outsider so I dont know the details or how sustainable this stuff is. Oh I dont really know what I am talking about. But if we have gone past the initial phase where video on the net and citizen media needed evangelising and promoting in order to raise awareness, and on to an era where youtube got the critical mass for now, where videoblogging is now commonly understood but maybe not using any of the terms weve used, but rather simply in terms of 'going on youtube', then does this mean all these helpful services that do their bit, need to change a little or a lot? How does something like ourmedia distinguish itself from youtube and add genuinely useful things that arent delivered by using any of the commercial options, even enlightened ones like blip? If the focus that created a community was 'video' and that no longer leads to a small respectful community, and people miss that, then a new community needs to form around something more specific in its aims? Purists, noncommercialists, anybody who is not overjoyed by the ways video on the web is going, people who think the magic is going or that its been tainted somehow, the solution is not to rage against the youtube or worry about what the masses are doing. Just create the community you want, somehow. The tools are there, just because others may misuse them doesnt mean that anybody needs to let even 1% of their dreams of the potential of vlogging get soiled by what others are doing. Then again thats probably what ourmedia set out to do in the first place, but its easier said than done. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. That's just semantics. http://revlog.blogspot.com, which you mention later, does a much better job of making it clear where they got their material. They also don't make it look like whomever originally posted the material has any affiliation with their blog whatsoever. It looks like what it is... a re-vlog. If you go to http://ourmedia.org/, the AIB video is now gone. So that's an easy fix too. You can't un-ring a bell, so that's not a fix. It prevents anyone that hasn't already seen it from getting the same incorrect impressions, which is a good thing, but it does nothing for those that already saw it and gathered their impressions of the situation. It's still a good idea until something can be decided between revlogger and content creator... IF that's a goal of the revlogger in the first place if you see something you dont like, definitely complain to that person. If they dont do anything about itthen raise a big stink. I find that most times things we dont like are just a misunderstanding. Since Brian ants to make sure people see AIB as being objectivehe should complain if someone makes him look inflamatory. as far as revlogging...let's look at a couple examples: http://revlog.blogspot.com/ (Ryanne) http://www.unitedvloggers.com/ (Michael Schaap) Do you expect either of them to email
[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
I understand Brian's objection to how his AIB has been revlogged as if he was part of OurMedia and with a misleading political slant given his video via choice of thumbnail a quote taken out of context. I have to admit being technically challenged here. I am just starting to study linking. There is a tutorial called 'Link Love on www.freevlog.org I have to study. I've had many requests to swap links and/or for me to link to another site. I know I'm missing traffic by not having done so. What question arises in my mind is where the dividing line is between a link posted on a site that may have a stated focus. Let's say, in this case, it was called Make Love, Not War was devoted to pacifism. If such a site wanted to put a link to your content on their site you really didn't want them to do so because you held neo-con views, do you have thge right to make them remove your name link from their page? And what about all these embed this video tags on YouTube elsewhere? Once you have allowed that to be with your video, have you consented to allow anyone to embed your video on their site? Hope this question doesn't make me seem technically stupid. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Hoboken, NJ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, brian conley brian_conley2005@ wrote: This morning I discovered that the work of one of my projects, Alive in Baghdad, had been posted on the front page of http://ourmedia.com. (I have enclosed a screen capture for your reference.) Not only did noone request the use of our work, or inform us of our inclusion on this site, but OurMedia presents our work in a way that could be significantly harmful to our project. At first glance, the presentation of our work on OurMedia suggests to the average viewer that AIB has a political, anti-war stance and that AIB is a part of OurMedia. In fact this could not be farther from the truth, AiB takes pains to present a balanced view of life in Iraq, that simply shows the experiences and feelings of Iraqis, without adding a political tone. Basicallyin representing AIB, OurMedia selected a thumbnail of a woman with a translated quote underneath that says May God Curse Bush and all those that brought him here. Obviously, this is not a quote that we would choose to have represent us. We worried about including that segment at all and feared that, out of context, separate from our other work, it could cause harm to the public face of the project, bring flamers, etc. However, inside of the entire episode, we felt it was acceptable and was reflective of the situation in Iraq. We care deeply about building a project that gives voice to Iraqi citizensnot towards pushing a political agenda. Such a posting can damage the perceptions of Alive in Baghdad and our future opportunities. Additionally, OurMedia indicates that we are a member of their organizationi.e. you'll notice to the right of the thumbnail, it lists a link titled member page that links to AliveinBaghdad.org. AiB is not, nor has it ever been, a member of Ourmedia. Given our experience, we question whether they actually have 125,000 members Jay @ Markus are addressing the issues and clearing up the misunderstandings, but I agree with you that someone reading that page will get certain incorrect impressions. Until reading the posts here, I didn't realize ourmedia was revlogging at all. I went to the page, saw the lady, saw the caption, clicked on member page and went straight to AiB. I think there's another link that says media page that goes to the AiB permalink for that video. I was looking for ANY member list at all, and couldn't find a list of content creators... you get sponsors partners, so that seemed odd as well. If a group's going to re-vlog material, especially sensitive material like AiB, thumbnail selection is CRITICAL. Until this situation, I would have assumed that the thumbnail used would have been the thumbnail supplied by the content creator. For instance, if you go to a video on blip and select share, you can select the actual thumbnail that the creator uploaded. I would assume that that would be used in the revlog as well. You can't use some automatically-generated thumbnail, because it's completely out of context. You can have a video about cleaning up the neighborhood with examples of what NOT to do in it, and the randomly selected thumbnail is of some guy spraying paint on the side of a wall. People's impression of the video itself, and consequentially, the group responsible for it, is going to be affected by their perception of the out-of-context image representing the video. Also, Markus has already mentioned the link issue. member page makes the person who is certainly not a member of this group think the group is cheating or trying to gain something by sneaking an affiliation with them
[videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
This is a very interesting thread to me in that I am a member of Our Media yet have found myself taking issue with the moderators of the site many times in the past. I have been what they call a guest editor and was charged with providing the links on the home page of Our Media and I can say that I like every other person on that site does in fact have a polital bent. I have been in a struggle with most of the moderators at Our Media as I am one of those neo-con LIBERTARIAN members who feels greatly misrepresented and mostly censored at Our Media. I realize that the creators of AiB wish to maintain a balanced view and I must say that it has been my experience that Our Media is not in any way a balanced site and 99.9% of the users are in fact very far to the left. There is nothing at all wrong with that fact but it should be clearly stated so that viewers can be aware or beware of the site and it's content. I beleive that the poster was in fact attempting to skew the content of AiB to suite their view. It may be legal, but it should be shunned by our community as no one here would want this to happen to their work! I think that Our Media should hear from all of us that although there is likely legal authority to re-post in this way that it is nevertheless unethical. Just my two cents worth. All the best, Darren W. The Driving Blogger www.drivingblogger.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBcriyqJeg --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand Brian's objection to how his AIB has been revlogged as if he was part of OurMedia and with a misleading political slant given his video via choice of thumbnail a quote taken out of context. I have to admit being technically challenged here. I am just starting to study linking. There is a tutorial called 'Link Love on www.freevlog.org I have to study. I've had many requests to swap links and/or for me to link to another site. I know I'm missing traffic by not having done so. What question arises in my mind is where the dividing line is between a link posted on a site that may have a stated focus. Let's say, in this case, it was called Make Love, Not War was devoted to pacifism. If such a site wanted to put a link to your content on their site you really didn't want them to do so because you held neo-con views, do you have thge right to make them remove your name link from their page? And what about all these embed this video tags on YouTube elsewhere? Once you have allowed that to be with your video, have you consented to allow anyone to embed your video on their site? Hope this question doesn't make me seem technically stupid. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Hoboken, NJ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, brian conley brian_conley2005@ wrote: This morning I discovered that the work of one of my projects, Alive in Baghdad, had been posted on the front page of http://ourmedia.com. (I have enclosed a screen capture for your reference.) Not only did noone request the use of our work, or inform us of our inclusion on this site, but OurMedia presents our work in a way that could be significantly harmful to our project. At first glance, the presentation of our work on OurMedia suggests to the average viewer that AIB has a political, anti-war stance and that AIB is a part of OurMedia. In fact this could not be farther from the truth, AiB takes pains to present a balanced view of life in Iraq, that simply shows the experiences and feelings of Iraqis, without adding a political tone. Basicallyin representing AIB, OurMedia selected a thumbnail of a woman with a translated quote underneath that says May God Curse Bush and all those that brought him here. Obviously, this is not a quote that we would choose to have represent us. We worried about including that segment at all and feared that, out of context, separate from our other work, it could cause harm to the public face of the project, bring flamers, etc. However, inside of the entire episode, we felt it was acceptable and was reflective of the situation in Iraq. We care deeply about building a project that gives voice to Iraqi citizensnot towards pushing a political agenda. Such a posting can damage the perceptions of Alive in Baghdad and our future opportunities. Additionally, OurMedia indicates that we are a member of their organizationi.e. you'll notice to the right of the thumbnail, it lists a link titled member page that links to AliveinBaghdad.org. AiB is not, nor has it ever been, a member of Ourmedia. Given our experience, we question whether they actually have 125,000 members Jay @ Markus are addressing the issues and clearing up the misunderstandings, but I agree with you that someone
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OurMedia, Whose Media? Concerns with CC licenses...
One thing about blogging is that you can present your case - and I think AiB should do so - using the blogtools available. A great chance to speak to their mission / purpose. Make it part of the AiB blog. The screenshot. Parts of this discussion. I'd be delighted to vlog it. Jan On 2/18/07, Darren Winkler Darren Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a very interesting thread to me in that I am a member of Our Media yet have found myself taking issue with the moderators of the site many times in the past. I have been what they call a guest editor and was charged with providing the links on the home page of Our Media and I can say that I like every other person on that site does in fact have a polital bent. I have been in a struggle with most of the moderators at Our Media as I am one of those neo-con LIBERTARIAN members who feels greatly misrepresented and mostly censored at Our Media. I realize that the creators of AiB wish to maintain a balanced view and I must say that it has been my experience that Our Media is not in any way a balanced site and 99.9% of the users are in fact very far to the left. There is nothing at all wrong with that fact but it should be clearly stated so that viewers can be aware or beware of the site and it's content. I beleive that the poster was in fact attempting to skew the content of AiB to suite their view. It may be legal, but it should be shunned by our community as no one here would want this to happen to their work! I think that Our Media should hear from all of us that although there is likely legal authority to re-post in this way that it is nevertheless unethical. Just my two cents worth. All the best, Darren W. The Driving Blogger www.drivingblogger.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBcriyqJeg --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand Brian's objection to how his AIB has been revlogged as if he was part of OurMedia and with a misleading political slant given his video via choice of thumbnail a quote taken out of context. I have to admit being technically challenged here. I am just starting to study linking. There is a tutorial called 'Link Love on www.freevlog.org I have to study. I've had many requests to swap links and/or for me to link to another site. I know I'm missing traffic by not having done so. What question arises in my mind is where the dividing line is between a link posted on a site that may have a stated focus. Let's say, in this case, it was called Make Love, Not War was devoted to pacifism. If such a site wanted to put a link to your content on their site you really didn't want them to do so because you held neo-con views, do you have thge right to make them remove your name link from their page? And what about all these embed this video tags on YouTube elsewhere? Once you have allowed that to be with your video, have you consented to allow anyone to embed your video on their site? Hope this question doesn't make me seem technically stupid. Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Hoboken, NJ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, brian conley brian_conley2005@ wrote: This morning I discovered that the work of one of my projects, Alive in Baghdad, had been posted on the front page of http://ourmedia.com. (I have enclosed a screen capture for your reference.) Not only did noone request the use of our work, or inform us of our inclusion on this site, but OurMedia presents our work in a way that could be significantly harmful to our project. At first glance, the presentation of our work on OurMedia suggests to the average viewer that AIB has a political, anti-war stance and that AIB is a part of OurMedia. In fact this could not be farther from the truth, AiB takes pains to present a balanced view of life in Iraq, that simply shows the experiences and feelings of Iraqis, without adding a political tone. Basicallyin representing AIB, OurMedia selected a thumbnail of a woman with a translated quote underneath that says May God Curse Bush and all those that brought him here. Obviously, this is not a quote that we would choose to have represent us. We worried about including that segment at all and feared that, out of context, separate from our other work, it could cause harm to the public face of the project, bring flamers, etc. However, inside of the entire episode, we felt it was acceptable and was reflective of the situation in Iraq. We care deeply about building a project that gives voice to Iraqi citizensnot towards pushing a political agenda. Such a posting can damage the perceptions of Alive in Baghdad and our future opportunities. Additionally, OurMedia indicates that we are a member
